Do sacred texts cause atrophy of morality?

[Looncall]

I have been intrigued to read various posts concerning matters of right and wrong. For example, current posts about women in islam. A constant feature of these discussions is that religious people refer to sacred texts for answers instead of trying to find answers by observation and reason. They often seem to reach particularly pernicious conclusions.

Would everyone be much better off without sacred texts? Would the human capacities for empathy, compassion and reason bring a better society to live in?

 

[Trimijopulos]

Would everyone be much better off without sacred texts?

I am afraid not!
Yet, everyone would be much better off without those exploiting archaic texts.

Before writing was invented people were adjusting their behavior to comply with the demands of oral tradition.
With the invention of writing oral tradition was recorded and some of these recordings became “sacred texts.”
Illiterate women who have suffered the ills of clitoridectomy during their entire lives they bring it on their little daughters to “clean” them.

Actually, I believe that we need the ancient texts in order to fight the sickly adherence to tradition.
OT urges Jewish people to circumcise but at the same time -according to my interpretation which is based on the Egyptian funerary texts- explains what exactly it is that circumcision symbolizes.
Consider the following passages.

And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him (Moses), and sought to kill him.
Then Zipporah (Moses’ wife) took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.(Ex. 4:24-26)

The great Egyptian god Ra circumcised himself (Book of the Dead, Ch. 17).
Zipporah circumcised her son in order to prove to the God that He was the father of her son and not Moses. To prove that her son was a “son of God.”
She casts the foreskin at the feet of the God and she is addressing Him not Moses!

The scholars who were responsible for the edition of the biblical texts offered a chance to those who study the texts to inform the Jewish people what the meaning of the circumcision was so that they would stop practicing it.

No one, however, will accept the above interpretation of the passages and people will keep amputating their children, but we cannot blame it on the texts.

 

[JacobEzra.]

OT urges Jewish people to circumcise but at the same time -according to my interpretation which is based on the Egyptian funerary texts- explains what exactly it is that circumcision symbolizes.
Consider the following passages.

And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him (Moses), and sought to kill him.
Then Zipporah (Moses’ wife) took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.(Ex. 4:24-26)

The great Egyptian god Ra circumcised himself (Book of the Dead, Ch. 17).
Zipporah circumcised her son in order to prove to the God that He was the father of her son and not Moses. To prove that her son was a “son of God.”
She casts the foreskin at the feet of the God and she is addressing Him not Moses!

The scholars who were responsible for the edition of the biblical texts offered a chance to those who study the texts to inform the Jewish people what the meaning of the circumcision was so that they would stop practicing it.

No one, however, will accept the above interpretation of the passages and people will keep amputating their children, but we cannot blame it on the texts.
[/FONT]

The most that passage tells us is to be thankful that we now have really sharp razors!

 

[BruceDLimber]

Would everyone be much better off without sacred texts?

Hardly!

These texts are especially valuable resources, especially the most recent ones!

Would the human capacities for empathy, compassion and reason bring a better society to live in?

Not necessarily: while common sense is well and good, there tends to be too much disorganization and randomness in situations where no clear guidance is available, often with each person picking a different and incompatible direction.

And if there's one thing worse than a bad organization, it's none whatever, aka chaos and anarchy.

As the quote says, "Let all things be done decently and in good order," and true religion is an excellent support for this as well as providing clear guidance about morality!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Penumbra]

I have been intrigued to read various posts concerning matters of right and wrong. For example, current posts about women in islam. A constant feature of these discussions is that religious people refer to sacred texts for answers instead of trying to find answers by observation and reason. They often seem to reach particularly pernicious conclusions.

Would everyone be much better off without sacred texts? Would the human capacities for empathy, compassion and reason bring a better society to live in?

I think that's doubtful. These shortcomings are not simply a result of the existence of these sorts of texts; it's about the behavior of the people. If there were no sacred texts, the same types of people would probably look for answers elsewhere; either with new sacred texts or with certain leaders, etc.

I mean, if the question is, "If everyone were more introspective, good at observing, and reasoning, would society be better?", then I'd say probably yes. But if the question is simply about if these texts were not here, would society be better, then I'd say probably not because I view this problem as originating with humans rather than due to some external source. If those weren't here, other ones would be. If other ones were not here, there would still be a substitute.

I think specific texts, and specific cultural practices can carry through generations in a given culture, and that can be a problem. I view certain philosophical or religious practices as being far more effective for personal growth than others.

 

[TheKnight]

I have been intrigued to read various posts concerning matters of right and wrong. For example, current posts about women in islam. A constant feature of these discussions is that religious people refer to sacred texts for answers instead of trying to find answers by observation and reason. They often seem to reach particularly pernicious conclusions.

Would everyone be much better off without sacred texts? Would the human capacities for empathy, compassion and reason bring a better society to live in?

For me, there is a great amount of noise out there about what is or is not moral. Personally, I think to focus on the actions of people as issues of "good" and "evil" is childish and immature.

Good and evil are words we use to describe things we don't like. Rationally speaking, it's not about things being actually good or evil. From a rational perspective, there are actions that we prefer and actions we don't prefer. Or, for me personally, actions that most benefit me and society (which it is ultimately beneficial for me to support) and actions that don't.

I could play the good and evil morality game, but then I could play World of Warcraft too. Is this opinion the result of my subscription to religious ideology? Perhaps, but then again, I subscribe to and live up to a much higher standard than most of those, religious or not, around me.

Usually, when I describe this perspective, people respond with emotional arguments.

 

[Levite]

Sacred text does not cause atrophy of morality. Not unless it is taken as static, and never interpreted.

Torah is supposed to be living. That is why we were given Written Torah and Oral Torah together, in combination: so that the text can be a foundation for an interpretive system of law/ethics/theology/morality that evolves with us as we grow.

If there is an interactive problem between text and morality, it is not in the text itself, but in inflexible and uncreative approaches to the text.

 

[Nakosis]

I have been intrigued to read various posts concerning matters of right and wrong. For example, current posts about women in islam. A constant feature of these discussions is that religious people refer to sacred texts for answers instead of trying to find answers by observation and reason. They often seem to reach particularly pernicious conclusions.

Would everyone be much better off without sacred texts? Would the human capacities for empathy, compassion and reason bring a better society to live in?

They try to elevate the rest of humanity to a higher level of morality. Takes time to filter though all the generations. At some critical mass point the next level has to be reached for. Some individual or group of individuals will create the next sacred texts to try and elevate humanity further. The morality of the NT and even the OT are still higher then that of some individuals. While on the other hand you may take some of this morality as a matter of fact or find some of it out dated.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Relgion, and sacred texts, are merely symptoms of human behavior, not causes.

 

[Nakosis]

I subscribe to and live up to a much higher standard than most of those, religious or not, around me.

Yes, but why? Why are you more moral then those around you?

You're a product of everything that came before you including those religions. Not saying religious ideology is all good. However, directly or indirectly they've influence your experiences in life which have developed your sense of right and wrong. Obviously a lot of things go into influencing your sense of right and wrong. Movies, books, people etc...

Since everyone's experiences differ, individual morality differs. You probably have no greater control over your sense of right and wrong then they do.

 

[Erebus]

I have been intrigued to read various posts concerning matters of right and wrong. For example, current posts about women in islam. A constant feature of these discussions is that religious people refer to sacred texts for answers instead of trying to find answers by observation and reason. They often seem to reach particularly pernicious conclusions.

Would everyone be much better off without sacred texts? Would the human capacities for empathy, compassion and reason bring a better society to live in?

From a Historical/Anthropological perspective they're absolutely fascinating so I'm against the idea that we'd be better off without them. They also provide many people with a reason to improve themselves which I have no problem with.
My suggestion would be that rather than worry about the texts themselves causing problems, simply show no mercy to the people who use them to harm others.

 

[Trimijopulos]

Torah is supposed to be living. That is why we were given Written Torah and Oral Torah together, in combination: so that the text can be a foundation for an interpretive system of law/ethics/theology/morality that evolves with us as we grow.

Correct! Written Torah would have been useless without oral Torah. Only that oral Torah is not for every body. Oral Torah, to my understanding, provides logic for what stories are there that seem to be unreasonable.

I’ve been studying archaic texts, especially Egyptian funerary texts for years and although I am essentially an atheist, I do respect and appreciate Torah and I deem it invaluable, but my interpretation of it I am sure you would not like (see post #2).

Torah is history too!
Scientists discovered only last year that we, modern people, come all from the Near East.
It is from there that “the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth”(Gen.11:9)
Since we all lived together in the Near East it is to be expected that there was one language only for every one.

However, I do not think that the variation of the oral Torah you were taught was conveying the information that Torah carries traces of memory of events that happened 40,000 (forty thousand) years ago. You see only law/ethics/theology and morality in it but it is mostly tradition. Law, ethics, theology, and morality can be found in any philosophical theory –Christian literature for example. Depriving Torah of tradition you render it useless.

 

[Levite]

Correct! Written Torah would have been useless without oral Torah. Only that oral Torah is not for every body. Oral Torah, to my understanding, provides logic for what stories are there that seem to be unreasonable.

I’ve been studying archaic texts, especially Egyptian funerary texts for years and although I am essentially an atheist, I do respect and appreciate Torah and I deem it invaluable, but my interpretation of it I am sure you would not like (see post #2).

Torah is history too!
Scientists discovered only last year that we, modern people, come all from the Near East.
It is from there that “the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth”(Gen.11:9)
Since we all lived together in the Near East it is to be expected that there was one language only for every one.

However, I do not think that the variation of the oral Torah you were taught was conveying the information that Torah carries traces of memory of events that happened 40,000 (forty thousand) years ago. You see only law/ethics/theology and morality in it but it is mostly tradition. Law, ethics, theology, and morality can be found in any philosophical theory –Christian literature for example. Depriving Torah of tradition you render it useless.

Sure, tradition is important, although we consider the boundary between tradition and Oral Torah to be blurry in many places.

In any case, I was just using Torah as an example, to analogize to ideal text approaches in other religions and traditions, also. Torah itself was meant for Jews, just as the scriptures of other religions were meant for them, and not for us.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I mean, if the question is, "If everyone were more introspective, good at observing, and reasoning, would society be better?", then I'd say probably yes. But if the question is simply about if these texts were not here, would society be better, then I'd say probably not because I view this problem as originating with humans rather than due to some external source. If those weren't here, other ones would be. If other ones were not here, there would still be a substitute.

I think specific texts, and specific cultural practices can carry through generations in a given culture, and that can be a problem. I view certain philosophical or religious practices as being far more effective for personal growth than others.

This is very True !!!

 

[9Westy9]

Would everyone be much better off without sacred texts? Would the human capacities for empathy, compassion and reason bring a better society to live in?

Yes we probably would as it'd be less reason to justify doing evil things.

Humans are also capable of hatred, anger and jealousy. I doubt that it'd stop evil altogether to remove sacred texts but removing them might help

 

[Me Myself]

It´s like asking if knives can cut people.

You can use a knive to free someone from ropes of a captor and send him free, or you can use knives to stab those you don´t like. ****, you can even use knives to put butter in your toast.

Knives don´t kill people, peoples kill people.

Texts don´t atrophy morality, people atrophy their moralities with texts that could as well be used to enhance and further that very same morality.

this is a problem, when you think people were made for the dogmas, and not the dogmas for the people.

You lose your focus.

 

[Songbird]

My thought is similar to other posts. I also think literalist readings and stark interpretations of holy texts are generally made by people young in their spiritual journeys - people who need step-by-step instructions on how to act, because they don't yet have the ability to integrate multiple sources of information that's evident in complex decision-making.

 

[Looncall]

What I am concerned about is seeing people content in rummaging about in their old books instead of doing any thinking. For instance, Godobeyer thinks it is all right to beat one's wife just because he can find some passage in the quran that says so. He substitutes his rummaging for any genuine moral reasoning.

This kind of thing can be, and is, used to justify all sorts of evils.

 

[Me Myself]

What I am concerned about is seeing people content in rummaging about in their old books instead of doing any thinking. For instance, Godobeyer thinks it is all right to beat one's wife just because he can find some passage in the quran that says so. He substitutes his rummaging for any genuine moral reasoning.

This kind of thing can be, and is, used to justify all sorts of evils.

Actually, he thinks is alright because verybody else is doing it from where he is from.

The Qran is just the excuse. If he didn´t think, he wouldn´t need an excuse, and morality has more to do with feeling not thinking generaly.

 

[Trimijopulos]

Torah itself was meant for Jews, just as the scriptures of other religions were meant for them, and not for us.

I guess you are right, the difference being that the Torah represents the only attempt ever made by humanity to turn tradition into history and thus we can say that it was written for the others too.

The killing of the giants, for example, which in the traditions of the other peoples is done by the gods and gives the impression that fairy tales are related, in the Torah it is done by the Jews themselves and it is presented as a part of the history of the Jewish people.
What does oral Torah teaches about those giants?